From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: Determining if an ext4 fs uses the whole partition Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:26:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4F9ED93C.2060308@redhat.com> References: <4F9ECC0E.8020201@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Drake Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44752 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755985Ab2D3S0R (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:26:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 4/30/12 1:18 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: ... > Trying the statfs approach (the fs in question is already mounted): > > # dumpe2fs -h /dev/mmcblk0p2 | grep "Block count\|Block size" > dumpe2fs 1.42 (29-Nov-2011) > Block count: 949248 > Block size: 4096 > > # stat -f / > File: "/" > ID: f09a7645207bdd68 Namelen: 255 Type: ext2/ext3 > Block size: 4096 Fundamental block size: 4096 > Blocks: Total: 934935 Free: 198205 Available: 188947 > Inodes: Total: 227824 Free: 133103 > > The numbers don't agree. > > (Not a big deal, since I can use the other 2 approaches you mentioned, > just wanted to point it out) Oh, that's because statfs on extN subtracts out the "overhead" from superblocks, block group descriptors, etc. I guess that's a reasonable interpretation of "/* total data blocks in file system */" but honestly I forgot that it did that... TBH, not entirely sure why it does. -Eric